[...] Takamori Akinori, a Shintō scholar and imperial household expert, wonders whether patrilineal succession really was the historical norm in Japan.
Female Transmission of the Imperial Bloodline
Takamori is also an opinion leader of a movement focused on making Princess Aiko the emperor in the future. Along with the manga artist Kobayashi Yoshinori, he spoke at the July public event, “
Making Aiko the Imperial Heir.”
Takamori sets the scene by sharing his view: “Mythology is more than a set of stories. Rather, it reflects the values of ancient peoples. What makes Japan stand out from other countries in this sense is the existence of a female supreme deity rather than a male one.”
That deity is
Amaterasu Ōmikami—the Sun Goddess, the ruler of the heavenly realm, and the source of Japan’s imperial tradition. The
Kojiki (trans.
Records of Ancient Matters) and other ancient texts also frequently refer to women as the founders of various ancestral clans in addition to Japan’s imperial family. Takamori believes that this shows “ancient Japan was not originally a patriarchal society. Women not only played an important role in transmitting the imperial lineage but held relatively high positions of influence in society as well.”
In terms of historical record, we know of the existence of eight female emperors. The first was Suiko, who reigned in 592–628 CE, at the start of Japan’s historically significant Asuka period. There were also female emperors during the Edo period (1603–1868). Takamori notes that, when looking at the rest of East Asia, this is a rare occurrence. China’s first female emperor was also its last; Wu Zetian officially ruled China for 15 years during an interregnum of the Tang Dynasty (690–705 CE). Three queens ruled the Silla Kingdom (57 BCE to 935 CE) that dominated most of the Korean Peninsula at its height, the last being in 897 CE. Comparatively speaking, “Japan historically was not a country that went out of its way to preclude females from becoming the emperor.”
Takamori also emphasizes the importance of consanguineous marriages between blood relatives in Japan’s imperial lineage. This effectively meant that emperors often inherited the throne based on both paternal and maternal bloodlines, or “dual lineage.” It was also not automatically the case that the male lineage was given greater precedence in succession discussions. If the maternal line allowed a closer connection to the main branch of the imperial line, then matrilineal succession could be used to legitimate an imperial heir.
The Foreign Origins of Imperial “Male Chauvinism”
This nevertheless begs the question of why Japan went 860 years from the end of the Nara period (710–94) to the beginning of the Edo period without a female emperor. Takamori explains that this was “due to the steadily increasing influence of ancient China on Japan’s elite culture.”
[...]
During the Edo period, however, the practice was effectively reconstituted when two women became emperors. This was despite Japan’s de facto ruler being the shōgun (ostensibly a military commander or generalissimo) and societal stability being enforced through hierarchical relationships between samurai and their lords. Nevertheless, these two emperors would have nominally possessed higher status than Japan’s male Tokugawa rulers.
Most notably, Emperor Kōkaku (r. 1779–1817) ascended to the throne from a recently created cadet branch of the imperial family. This was the fourth time in Japan’s history a cadet branch was established to provide an imperial successor if the “main bloodline” died out. Kōkaku was later careful to link his own lineage with that of the main bloodline by marrying his predecessor’s daughter, Princess Yoshiko. In essence, his appeal to legitimacy was based on a “dual lineage” connection.
“Patrilineal Succession” Norm a Meiji Invention
[...]
The recency of this norm was made clear in a new book by Tokoro Isao, Tennō no rekishi to hōritsu o minaosu (Rethinking Imperial History and Laws). Arguably the leading scholar on Japan’s imperial household, Tokoro observes: “Until the Meiji era, there was almost no discussion or clear statement that the succession to the throne would exclude women and be limited to the paternal line.”
Article 1 of the Meiji Constitution stipulates that “The Empire of Japan shall be reigned over and governed by a line of Emperors unbroken for ages eternal,” while Article 2 specifies succession be limited to “Imperial male descendants.” While many believe this to be an ancient tradition, the phrasing focusing on lineal succession “unbroken for ages eternal” was actually coined by the statesman Iwakura Tomomi. In fact, terms like “patrilineal succession” had not been used until the Meiji era.
Much like today, during the Meiji era there was also controversy over what the Imperial House Law should say about succession and whether a female emperor and matrilineal succession were acceptable options. [...] In fact, several legislative drafts recognized both the possibility of a female emperor and dual lineage succession.
However, Inoue Kowashi (later director general of the powerful Legislative Bureau) argued strongly for limiting succession and eventually prevailed. Takamori explains Inoue’s reasoning: “It was based on his perception of Meiji cultural attitudes being characterized by the idea of ‘male superiority’—in the phrase of the day, danson johi, literally, ‘respect for men, contempt for women.’ As such, Inoue asserted that allowing both men and women to ascend to the throne could potentially introduce confusion.”
[...]
“Matrilineal Emperors” Did Exist
Meiji leaders located the source of imperial sovereign legitimacy in the idea of “lineal succession unbroken for ages eternal.” While the existence of female emperors was well known, Takamori explains that Meiji leaders dealt with the issue by simply claiming that past female emperors were little more than “successors to the paternal line.” Takamori argues that this was, however, post-facto logic retrofitted to support Meiji preferences for patrilineal succession. “In reality, there were matrilineal emperors, too. Since there were many consanguineous marriages, it might have seemed plausible to claim that the male bloodline was the decisive factor in succession. However, we must not overlook the fact that a dual lineage succession approach was consciously adopted, and lineage was routinely traced through both maternal and paternal lines.”
[...]
Female emperors also played important historical roles. Emperor Suiko’s reign (592–628; 33) marked the Asuka period of “enlightenment” based on the introduction of Buddhism, while Jitō’s reign (690–697; 41) marked the completion of the aforementioned Ritsuryō system of national laws. Takamori also observes that “Emperor Genmei initiated and oversaw the monumental task of transferring the imperial capital from Fujiwara-kyō to Heijō-kyō”, the completion of which marked the beginning of the Nara period. “From this alone we can see that the view that female emperors had few notable achievements and simply placeholders is biased.”
The Law Is Not Eternal
[...]
Takamori, meanwhile, warns that “the very existence of the imperial family is at stake. We do not have the luxury of continuing to insist on patrilineal succession.” He reiterates that appeals to tradition miss the point that patrilineal succession “is based on a male chauvinistic view influenced by the practices of ancient China. The fact that women cannot currently be what the Constitution calls the ‘symbol of unity’ of their own country and people is unacceptable. We must face the fact that this viewpoint is contemptuous of women, far removed from the original tradition of Japan, and is ultimately at the root of the crisis in the imperial household.”
[...]
Interesting, thank you! 
